"The Soviets could get rockets into orbit but couldn't get reliable onions to Moscow."

Deus Vult
--Gottfried ( )

"The Soviets could get rockets into orbit but couldn't get reliable onions to Moscow."

Deus Vult
--Gottfried ( )

recommended by Breakpoint commentary.

The first two chapters were very good and really made the thesis case. The next three were an interesting political, industrial, and economic history of Europe, but rarely even refereced the role of Christianity in these developments. The seventh chapter used the new world colonies as an interesting reflection of Europe to underscore the point. ( )

Stark sets out to challenge anthropologists like Jared Diamond who contend that Europeans rose to prominence mainly out of geographic factors in their favor. Stark's hypothesis is that Christian thinking-- forward looking thought towards progress and in favor of basic equality and property rights-- led to European development. That while the decline of the Roman Empire is something historians have lamented in centuries past, it was precisely the catalyst that freed up individuals to become entrepreneurs. Stark makes the point that Max Weber's protestant work ethic hypothesis is a myth--capitalism existed long before protestantism.

In short, Stark thinks like an economic historian and shows that it's the incentives that matter. I thought Ferguson's Ascent of Money (my review) did a good job of showing the development of basic finance and economic thought. But Stark goes further back then Ferguson did, and does a much better job. Ferguson's book was a bestseller and got a PBS special. Stark's book won't.

The problem I have with Stark's book is that the links he makes to Christianity being a catalyst for economic development come across rather weakly. Early church fathers frowned on lending and commercial activity. There was a long period where the Catholic church looked more favorably on these activities, and then after the Protestant Reformation the Catholic church reverted back to opposing those activities and preserving its sovereignty. So, the church has played it both ways.

But if you can link Christian thinking to equality-- no king has any more right to your property than you because God shows no favoritism-- then you have the basis for property rights, which is the basis for capitalism.

This book was recommended to me by my dean, and then someone referred me to Horizon Community Church in Cincinnati, where the pastor was preaching a sermon series supposedly inspired by the book. So, it was a must-read. I'm requiring it for the Winterfest course I'm teaching on the history of economic and financial thought.

In all, I give this book 3.5 stars out of 5. Namely because I'd bet that someone has some good arguments to oppose Stark. But the book is an easy read and is quite entertaining and informative. I am humbled by how much I learned from it. ( )

Another reviewer on this site has expressed appreciation at reading a history of economics and religion not written in the service of a secularist agenda. While I agree with this in principle, I must note with disappointment that the religious agenda espoused by Stark leads him to overstate his case to an extent that actually does his arguments a disservice -- and his intermittently careless use of established historical facts doesn't help either. To mention only two examples, the Caesars didn't shiver in winter as they had hypocaust heating (of which Stark seems so completely unaware that he explicitly denies the presence of heated houses in ancient Rome) and Roman cavalry saddles, while certainly lacking stirrups, were not flat but had projecting horns that helped to hold the rider in place.

Anyone looking for a reliable, concise source of arguments for the purpose of apologetics would be well advised to treat the claims in this book with considerable caution. I was extremely disappointed by the factual inaccuracies and the excessively tendentious tone of the book. Having bought it together with "The Rise of Christianity" with no prior knowledge of this author's oeuvre, I can only say that "Victory" is useful primarily for the bibliography at the back, which may be worth mining for better-quality reading material,and that, having wasted money on purchasing "Rise", I won't be compounding the bad investment by wasting any of my precious free time on reading it.

No stars.